Christianity, rationally defended, introduction

[Brucknerian]

Serious critical responses from members are welcome, pertaining to the works that can be found via the two links below. I'm a serious Christian, by serious meaning one who analyzes God's Word with the view of trying my best to understand it on its fundamental level. Did you know that what philosophers call 'the problem of evil' is answered in the Bible? ... and that there are ways to prove God's existence outside of the Bible, through pure critical reasoning? The links lead to a work that can be downloaded for free from Philosophy Papers Archives. The titles are "Rational Theism, Part One ..." and "Rational Theism, Part Two...." The first part puts forth an a priori proof of God's existence that conforms to the critical demands for such a proof as put forth by the philosopher/metaphysician Immanuel Kant. It includes an Appendix that clarifies Kant in this regard, and the Appendix will help those both familiar and unfamiliar with Kant to comprehend more clearly what Kant had in mind in his "Critique of Pure Reason". "Rational Theism, Part One" can be called a Theory of Everything (TOE) in the true sense. To understand this you'll have to not just read, but comprehend the pure conceptual system of understanding it advances. I believe not everyone will be suited to such a task as it puts a serious strain on one's conceptual abiloities--artists, or creative thinkers are more likely to understand the system of understanding than those who simply breeze through works with no real intent to understand a work on its deepest level. The second work, "Rational Theism, Pat Two..." is a Biblical Exegesis that presents the Bible's answer to the problem of evil, and it is an answer that apologists have failed to understand, having sought for an answer to the problem outside of the scriptures. If you have ever wondered why, if there is a God, there is such evil as we see and hear about in the world, that reaches back to the dawn of civilization, you might be interested in learning the answer that's apparent in the Word. It's very clearly delineated and its surprising at least to me that it has gone completely unnoticed. There are five dozen scriptural passages that are included that when put together, reveals the answer. The two works can also be called philosophical, and probably more this, than just another apologetic, and this should become more and more clear as one goes through the works. Let me know what you think. Are the works a contribution to serious Christian understanding, and debate, are they a staunch defense against atheism; or are they just the same old usual apologetics?

https://philpapers.org/archive/LIIRTP-2.pdf
https://philpapers.org/rec/LIIRTP-3

[fredonly]

How could phyics possibly infer something is uncaused? It seems contrary to the practice of science- they would always seek a cause, even if it were actually uncaused.

How could physics infer something has no beginning? It seems to me they would always seek to understand how something began, even if it actually had no beginning.

Your question entails a contradiction, so my answer is: Mimsy Were the Borogoves.

[JehovahsWitness]

Your question entails a contradiction ...

The questions quoted above are yours not mine. There are No contradictions in any questions I have asked.

I also asked : Do you know the difference between a claim and a speculative question?

[fredonly]

Your question entails a contradiction, so my answer is: Mimsy Were the Borogoves.

The questions quoted above are yours not mine. There are No contradictions in any questions I have asked.

You said: If physics were to "infer" the existence of an uncaused "something", that had no beginning,...(blah blah blah) ?
It is impossible for physics to infer either that something exists uncaused or with no beginning. So your antecedent entails assuming two impossible things are both possible. It's a contradiction times 2.

[JehovahsWitness]

It is impossible for physics to infer either that something exists uncaused or with no beginning.

What do you mean by "infer"? Do the speculative hypotheses of physicists count as inferences by physics, or do you limit it to inferences made by established theories in physics?

[fredonly]

It is impossible for physics to infer either that something exists uncaused or with no beginning.

What do you mean by "infer"? Do the speculative hypotheses of physicists count as inferences by physics, or do you limit it to inferences made by established theories in physics?

The latter.

[fredonly]

There are No contradictions in any questions I have asked

I proved this false, here:

Your question entails a contradiction, so my answer is: Mimsy Were the Borogoves.

The questions quoted above are yours not mine. There are No contradictions in any questions I have asked.

You said: If physics were to "infer" the existence of an uncaused "something", that had no beginning,...(blah blah blah) ?
It is impossible for physics to infer either that something exists uncaused or with no beginning. So your antecedent entails assuming two impossible things are both possible. It's a contradiction times 2.

[JehovahsWitness]

I DON'T BELIEVE IN TH UNNATURAL...EXCEPT WHEN I DO.

May I briefly return to your belief system. ....

... the fundamental basis of physical reality would exist uncaused. I believe something is uncaused ...

It is impossible for physics to infer either that something exists uncaused ...

.... I believe something is uncaused ...

QUESTION #1Does your belief in the existence of an uncaused something (Xxx) that is the fundamental basis of physical reality amount to believing in something unnatural (ie it falls outside of your definition of the natual world)?

The unnatural: any hypothetical object not covered by 1-4.

[JehovahsWitness]

The unnatural: any hypothetical object not covered by 1-4.

AN OBJECT

Something material that may be perceived by the senses - Merriam-Webster

... physics* doesn't infer anything immaterial existing

* Physics is the scientific study of matter

[JehovahsWitness]

..inferences made by established theories ..

QUESTION #2 Would the law of cause and effect be an established theory of physics?




JW

Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force

[JehovahsWitness]

The natural:

1. Everything in the world that we directly perceive
2. Everything that is inferred to exist through physics
3. Everything that is causally connected through laws of nature to 1&2
4. The complete mereological makeup of everything entailed by 1-3.

The unnatural: any hypothetical object not covered by 1-4.

Whatever is the fundamental basis of physical reality would exist uncaused...

... the stuff that became the universe is unanalyzable with current physics.

... Refering to "material reality" leaves open the possibility of the immaterial (existing independently of the natural world) ...